Identification preferences

I would love to know how you can speak so authoritatively about your god. Almost as if you could sit down and have a cup of tea with it.

So where does this amazing knowledge of yours come from?

You’ve made this too complicated and tedious.
You are a gnostic theist.
You are definitely not an atheist. Fine, no problem.
You believe in your ‘God’ and your ‘Devil’ and you believe they can be proven and known by philosophy and contemplation. That’s Gnosticism, special knowledge.
Gnostic theist.
Gnostics have it hard.
An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent ‘God’, by definition is ineffable, and being beyond expression makes it impossible for any contemplation about it being even reasonably compelling.
Philosophical theists don’t have it any easier, no-one has ever reasoned ‘God’ into existence, outside human imagination.

There is no claim that physics can explain everything. That’s your first strawman, I think.
You have a limited understanding of the various fields of science and their relationships. Physics and chemistry are the two primary research areas in science. They complement each other and sometimes it can be difficult to determine where one starts or finishes in respect to the other. Both fields are distinct but interrelated. Both are fundamental to biology and its impossible to understand the operations of nature without either.
Consciousness is only a fundamental function of an active living human brain. Its an extremely localised phenomenon and has little elemental purpose for the universe which has existed blissfully unconcerned without it for 14 billion years.

Understanding human consciousness can can only inform us about ourselves, and amazing beneficial discoveries have already been made in neurological research about how we feel, see, hear, think and even heal ourselves. It also reveals how and why many people believe in divine agencies. It has little to show us about the universe other than how we perceive it. It has next to no effect on it. The world turns regardless of thoughts.

You might well speak from logic, but logic is not necessarily a path to truth unless the premises are shown to actually be true, ie as shown by evidence provided by repeatable experimentation. This undefined "understanding of phenomena inherent in nature’ sounds like the usual meaningless theistic poetry.

You are only mildly irritating. You have already shown how tedious you can be about labels. You are a gnostic theist, simple.
By all means present your position but if you are just going to show us how clever you are with the usual pre-suppositionalist philosophy and fatuous word salads, I will pass. I only felt the need to correct you on your ignorant comments about science and that in itself is not a good sign in the hope for an informed debate.

With all honesty good luck, but you better be prepared. There are many here who are formidable and most unforgiving in debate. Choose your words wisely.

2 Likes

You should never ask such a question unless you can handle all of the answers. However, seeing as you’ve asked: So far just another ignorant and arrogant presuppositional apologist. We tend to average about least one a week. It truly gets very tedious. You asked.

1 Like

Okay, so everyone should read this please.

When you quote please quote significant portion of the paragraph and not just one line. Such practices makes it difficult to understand to exactly which argument you are replying. One line or part of the line don’t perfectly represent the argument. I see that members here generally quote one lines and even few words of the line and reply to it casually, but please don’t do this to me at least.

Few years back I had been the member of philosophical site, so I am habitual to post lengthy replies. I hope it won’t bother you. I would like if you do the same. But please don’t reply in one line. Explain your point of view clearly and thoroughly. This makes everyone’s thoughts deeper and exchanges valuable, and help better our understanding of things. I am saying this because I see sometimes members here reply in in one line just on the basis of their prejudices about theists, without explaining their position properly.

By the replies I got, I get the impression that atheists here are very prejudicial about the theists and attack them with all their preconceived ideas about them, ridicule them, and underestimate them because they are not likely to be one in billions like Einstein, Galileo or Newton who will tell or explain to you something concrete objectively. You attack them so ruthlessly that they run away and you people get the impression that you defeated one more fool.

Of course, they are very less likely to be one in billions who will prove what is still unproved since thousands of years with probably millions of people tried and died. But this doesn’t mean that you should discourage them from imagining, thinking, theorizing and trying to discover the evidence. They are doing their part and very likely to not be successful, but that doesn’t mean it can never be proved what they want to prove because millions tried and died. One in billions prove something. If Einstein wouldn’t have proved the theory of relativity that doesn’t not mean that anyone else could have proved that. It is possible that another 100 years would pass to discover relativity if Einstein wouldn’t have proved that. So some things are difficult to prove, and we are just common people, one among many, but also unique individual in our own way, and we can try. So, please don’t judge me on the basis of what other people had been able to do till now.

@Whitefire13

Yes, quantum “weirdness” actually accurately describes what scientists experienced, and there’s no need to call it quantum miracles, because they can this weirdness every time they conduct the experiments, just it doesn’t behave the way nature generally behave. I don’t know quantum mechanics or physics much but what I got from what I read is that it’s behavior is not determinable, and nature’s behavior is generally determinable.

Miracles are different in it’s appearance that it doesn’t happen all the time. You can’t observe it whenever you want. It’s happens in relation to the level of reality we live in. It doesn’t happen with another level of reality, like quantum level reality. An example will make it clear. Think of water bursting from a big piece of big rock. Rock exist in a level of reality we live in, not in molecular, or in atomic, on in quantum level. And rock doesn’t behave this way generally, but you are seeing this happening, then this is miracle. And it is quite a different thing then weirdness.

If you want to take the example of supernaturals, then take cases suggestive of Reincarnation or rebirth. This is the best supernatural category out there for which you can have many examples, but you should not be outrightly dismissive.

@Nyarlathotep

No, you can’t. Even if what you originally said was true (about the origins of religions), you still won’t be able to prove it with logic. The fact that you think you can suggests to me you don’t really know what it means to work with logic.

Okay. It’s great to see that you concluded about me without giving me a chance to actually begin with my idea or logic behind what I say.

I support you in your attitude of generalizing the whole group because I also do so and think that this actually is absolutely correct. But it becomes very critical when you start generalizing an individual on the basis of behavior of a group. I won’t support you in passing a judgement about an individual on the basis of group because an individual may turn out to be opposite of what it’s group is. For example, by a survey you found out that 70% people of X group have quality A, and 30% don’t have the quality A, then you can say that X group have quality A even if 30% of group don’t have that quality, because more than 50% have that quality and a group is more than summation of its individual units. I will support you in this. But I won’t support you if someone from that group is in front of us and you say on the basis of group X that this individual have quality A. I am against saying anything prejudicial or judgemental towards an individual, though you can generalize the whole group he belongs to but not in front of him. This might be little critical, but I have a question draft pending for new thread in this regard, where I would like clear this point further, if that thread get approved by the admins.

Different people mean it differently when they the word “logic”. When I say “logic” I mean something inherent in nature. It is certainly also about how we present the argument but not exactly about it. It is like how nature present the argument or reveal some truth. Yes, you read it right, nature reveal the truth, and that’s why we discover some truth (that means scientists discover the truth). So there’s logic in nature. So my “logic” is little critical and you won’t get it unless I have posted 10 replies at least regarding God, religion, Satan in my very own threads. And you read those replies carefully. So have patience.

At last, it is not right to put up a challenge in discussion to test the ability of debater on the basis of just that question. Would it be right if I will do so with you?
But because you have already asked, I will answer. So if 6 = 7, then 8 = 9. This statement is true, because if 6 is equal to 6+1, then 8 is equal to 8+1. If I am wrong, and the statement is false then prove it please.

I am very weak in formal logic though, but I think I have good sense of informal logic. But as I said my logic is different. It’s in between philosophy and science.

I am telling you please don’t judge me very soon. Take enough time.

When I said it was impossible; I meant it is an impossible task for anyone.

Like suggesting someone will draw a Euclidean square that is also a circle. You might be excellent at drawing, but that is an impossible task for anyone.

The forum software already deals with this problem for you. If you click on a quote it will display the full post in question, with the quoted section highlighted.

That seems pretty darn subjective.

Could you maybe give us a list of a dozen or so things, sorted into presumably one of these two categories? You know, so we can get at least a vague notion of what you mean by that?

  1. inherent in nature
  2. NOT inherent in nature

Well I’m a little tired of theists coming here, pontificating about logic; and them not knowing the first thing about it. I’m glad you and I could establish that you do not mean formal logic when you say logic.

@boomer47

I have experienced that some people imply by their way to argument that because they haven’t experienced something then it doesn’t exist or happens. They imply that if there’s something they must have experienced it. So according to them, their source of knowledge is their inexperience, and I don’t think that it is valid source of knowledge. This is why I said that “not experiencing” and “not imagining” something should also not be accounted as the basis of knowledge. It was just to add to what you said that experience and imagining couldn’t be the basis of knowledge. I didn’t mean it to say that I refuted your argument.

I have no problem with your second paragraph.

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

Okay old_man_shouts_at_cl, I will try to express my logic behind why I say that religions are always created by Devil or Satan and not by God. I can speak so authoritatively because I say it on the basis of some logic. When you have a logic, then you say it with confidence.

My knowledge come from interest in logic (like of logician), human behavior, mind, consciousness, experience, observation and thinking, analyzing, formulating.

@Phoenix101

:flushed:… glad to see that Satanic theists are much more polite and organized - also thoughtful. sweet

OK :+1:

…rock doesn’t behave this way generally, but you are seeing this happening, then this is miracle. see below

Any historic account is heresay and tenuous at best.

Current natural weirdness (our level of reality, not quantum level) normally has a natural explanation, BUT may not be obvious at the time or may need more study … there are many examples, I will provide later.

“God of the gaps” -
Introducing a deity where there is a gap or “miracle” where there is a gap in knowledge (setting aside frauds, fakes and trickery)

Ahhh :relieved: with all sincerity, I love that you brought forward your best (This is the best supernatural category out there for which you can have many examples)

For now - I’ll let you absorb and respond to the idea of “miracles”.

One example of water turning to blood :drop_of_blood:

OR ROCKS that move on their own …

image !
image

So you are making up your own definition?. Sorry, not something I or others here will usually accept.
Usually we accept dictionary definitions. The word "logic "has precise meanings.

I have never seen a logic in nature, nor evidence of a designer such reasoning implies. I see great wonder, great beauty and but no obvious purpose. Nothing I’ve seen in nature has allowed met to conclude “therefore god”

"reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

“experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic”

Similar:

science of reasoning

science of deduction

science of thought

dialectics

argumentation

ratiocination

a system or set of principles underlying the arrangements of elements in a computer or electronic device so as to perform a specified task.



Definitions from Oxford Languages"

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=logic+definition&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

The only thing I know about logic is that errors in logic are so common that there are list tiled “Common Errors of Logic”. I for one am interested in hearing your logic for believing Satan and Devils create religion. You’re likely to find it a hard sale to people who don’t believe in Devils or Gods.

2 Likes

Straw man fallacy. I have never made such a claim. I really don’t know, neither does anyone else.
Do take care in telling this atheist what I believe . You are in no position to know unless I tell you, but I have not told you.

I do not believe in gods, nor the devil. That means I am unable to believe the devil created anything. BUT, I make no claims because I don’t know.

Be fascinated to see your evidence for the existence of the devil or any other supernatural being.

No believer in recorded history has managed to demonstrate to existence of god and/or the devil.

While I wait for proof of god(s) I have no alternative but to conclude that without exception, all religions have been invented by human beings. That without exception, religions reflect the societies which invent them ,and the individuals who practice them;’

EG: YHWH began as a minor war god of the ancient Israelites. He had a wife called Asherah. The people who invented YHWH were an illiterate, nomadic tribe of bronze age goat herders. Their lives were nasty brutish and short. Consequently their gods tended to be pretty brutal. YHWH was petty, jealous, vindictive, unforgiving and genocidal. As he developed from a petty war god to creator god of the universe, his attributes also changed to a loving father figure.

Of interest: There is an amazing play called "God On Trial " It’s set in a Nazi extermination camp. The men there know they will be killed the next day. Many are devout Jews. They put god on trial, alleging he broke the Abrahamic covenant by allowing the Holocaust. God is found guilty. The play is worth watching imo for atheist or believer

Oh dear, I meant that as a reply to Phoenix. I hadn’t even seen your post. They were the one’s saying they believed Devils created religion and had logical proof.

I’m confused, who was making that claim? I’m sorry if I misread.

I think they’ve said it more that once even, but I can’t find it right now.

Cranky does this :face_with_raised_eyebrow: - steps in and gives a fellow atheist shit … a Cranky bastard this one is…

:stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

@Grinseed

I mean omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent “God” in a different way.
Here’s how I mean it:

Omniscient : one who knows all sciences or natural cause and effect. I don’t mean the one who knows past, present and future. God is omniscient, Devil is not. This is why Devil prove(show) things by evoking emotions, ask for blind belief, do poetry, because he is fraudster and don’t know much.

Omnipotent: the one who can do anything. I don’t think God is omnipotent. God is limited by devil, and Devil is limited by God in omnipotence. Secondly God is omnipotent provided a condition. Means if you want God to do something you need fulfill the condition.

Omnipresent : the one who present everywhere. Yes, God is everywhere.

So, God is comprehensible under such definitions of omnis, but still very difficult. No, God is not beyond expression but you need understand devil first, and you need understand God only through logic, understanding and thoughts, and not by emotions, beliefs, feelings. Just like how scientists do the physics. By emotions you can understand devil, and only devil, even if you call Devil as God.

Above is just to say that my ideas are interested, and it is my understanding, not belonging to any scriptures and religions.

There is no claim that physics can explain everything. That’s your first strawman, I think. You have a limited understanding of the various fields of science and their relationships. Physics and chemistry are the two primary research areas in science.

Certainly, I have limited understanding of science. But when you say that evidence is something that you can see, then I think you mean it through physics and other sciences of inanimate objects. I mean what other science is so objective that can provide irrefutable evidence, which is also demonstrable, testable and reproducible?

Okay for now, Grinseed. I need to sleep now. See you soon.

So you have an interest in logic, yet confirm to Nyar you are using “informal” or personalised logic?
Why should I find that compelling evidence for your assertions?

You state “you have an interest in” but not qualifications or evidence of study of: human behavior, analyzing, formulating.

To what depth?Analyzing exactly what? Formulating exactly what?

Please define these random words you have used as if they were a field of study:mind, consciousness, experience, observation and thinking,

Your definitions are just personal subjective beliefs about your ‘God’.
They are no more valid than the usual traditional ones and just as meaningless in the absence of proof of any god’s existence, or that of your ‘Devil’.

And as you reject established doctrines and scriptures it now appears you are relying purely on revelation, which is the ultimate expression of subjectivity, Gnosticism and the rejection of science. Ditto your personal musings on nature.

I am assuming you will attempt to employ ‘informal logic’ aka inductive logic, (no, ‘informal’ does not mean ‘casual’ or ‘personal’ it is as strict a form of logic as the ‘formal’ kind) to expand the information of your observations and contemplations into a sound and cogent argument for the existence of ‘God’. Be aware the form of logic is not the issue, it’s the soundness and validity of the premises proposed, they need to be true. So far you have not offered any argument or premises, only claims. At best informal or inductive logic produces only ‘sound’ or ‘cogent’ arguments, not ‘truth’ and only then when the premises are demonstrably ‘true’.

As you have admitted a poor understanding about science I think it fair to explain the following, please read it, it will save a lot of time later:

Science is a disciplined multi-faceted area of physical and theoretical research conducted by eminently qualified and certified academics. This research involves both inanimate objects and living organisms and it only seeks to establish the best information available on current evidence and denies being capable of determining absolute truths, which are the domain of conceited religions and faiths.

The heart of Science is The Scientific Method, a global, internationally administered methodology that ensures the objectivity of findings in all fields of research (bio-chemistry, nano-technology, astrophysics, etc). This is a rigid conformity and you can imagine its importance especially in the area of medicine and particularly during a global pandemic.
This methodology involves developing conjectures (hypotheses), sometimes sourced from mathematics, sometimes by observation or by any sort of verifiable measurement, deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. Experiments are required to be demonstrable, testable, repeatable and satisfy falsifiability. To answer your question this applies to all areas of scientific research and not just to physics.
Such experiments can be used to produce the basic laws of science (atoms are made of neutrons, protons and electrons, water comprises hydrogen and oxygen) and scientific theories, the highest form of scientific knowledge.
Theories are not considered perfect, immutable nor as ultimate truths. They are only regarded as the latest correct information available. All findings are subject to stringent peer review, any shortcomings exposed terminates the hypothesis.
A feature of the scientific method provides for the introduction of new verifiable information from successful experiments that can invalidate earlier hypotheses or even theories. In this way objective information is maintained and improved. I re-emphasise that the scientific method applies to all areas of scientific research and not just to physics.

This does not prevent scientists employing imagination or purely speculative reasoning and many great discoveries have started out as improbable ideas. (The heliocentrism of the solar system, the Theory of Gravity, the existence of fossilised feathered lizards, the Theory of Relativity, the molecular structure of the benzene ring, the existence of black holes etc.)

While I can not ‘see’ all of these things, I can confidently rely on the quality of information presented based on my understanding of the fundamental operation of the scientific method, which I maintain is far more reliable than any religious dogma and scripture or the intangible imaginings of a man seeking his god, no matter how sincere he might be.

Through the thorough and detailed scientific research in biology I have been presented with a window into the otherwise unattainable, detailed and incredibly phenomenal wonders of the natural world, leaving me better able to understand how and why all creatures in it are connected and adapted to their environments in a near perfect symbiotic whole which never fails to astound and mesmerise me. It reinforces my reverence for the natural forces that have created this physical reality and this is just from what I learn from natural biology. Every field of research creates the same feeling of humble awe at the total grandeur of the Universe.
.
The suggestion of a creator god deflates the notion of that grandeur. Proposing that this Universe was designed and created, like some consumer product, simply degrades it of its rightful natural majesty.
I don’t need logic, philosophy, doctrine, scripture and especially not your ‘God’, for he is too small.

Keep your mask on and keep safe.

1 Like